The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CVLN MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS The Court made the following: ORDER c ?', HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAXA IIRIT PE'TITION No. 222460F 2023 ORDER: Petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of infrastructure development, contracts and executing different kinds of infra projects for State and Central Governments. They were ar,'i'arded contract by the 2nd respondent - Superintending Engineer (R&B), National Highways Circle for 'improvement o[ Road safety by providing pedestrian guard railing and road safety measures in KM 51O/O to 5241O on Pune-Hyderabad scction of NH 65 in the State of Telangana under Road Safety Annual Plart 2O2l-22', being the lone bidder, uide agreement boncl datecl O4 l l '2022 \t'ith the work value at Rs. 3,78,41,1 I 1. lO ps Accordingll" petitioner deposited Rs.9,17,3OO/- with Bank ol Maharashtra lt is stated' as per Schedule'B'in pagc 33 o[ Agreemct-tt bond drawings are NIL. Petitioner complied u'ith APSS Stand:rrd prcliminary speciltcations and also MORTH specilicat ions ar.rcl submitted three different designs / d riru ings ()n 2r'1 I '2022 and 07.12.2022 for approval of anv t;ne bv the 3'd respondent - Executive Engineer (R&B). u'ho. in turn, uide lctter dated 1 ) 2

05.01.2023 informed to carry out the work as per BOQ, which - refer to quantity, unit of work and rate per unit and also technical specifications whereas the related column of BOQ does not give any reference for drawings. According to petitioner, drawings and technical specifications are altogether different parameters and Respondents 2 and 3 refer only to specihcations whenever the request for approval of drawings is rciterated. It is stated further that drawings will have hnancial implications in execution of work and unless respondents approvc the same, any performance by petitioner could be rejected for want of approval of drawings. While so, the 3'd respondent urde letter derred

27.01.2023 alleged that petitioner did not commencc rvork rcrnaining silenl on approval of drawings. Petitioner therelore, sulrmirrccl letter dated 22.02.2023 stating that the). did nor rcccivc any technical specifications as promised bl thc a, a rcspondent, hence, once again, requested them to givc approval. Flr, lctter clated 25.05.2O23, tlrre 3rd respondent instructecl pctltroner to apply for extension of time and thereafter bv le er clatccl 16.06.2023 issued show cause notice indicatrng tcrmination of contract for which, petitioner ansu.ercd orr 3

23.06.2023 reminding pending issue of approval of drawings. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent requested petitioner through letter dated 26.06.2023 to attend the office of the 3.d respondent and take up tlre work. Then, again, the 3rd respondent issued letter referring to BOe and technical specifications for completion of work. It is stated, on 06.0T.2023, petitioner expressed concern for urgency of work arrd requested the 3rct respondent to approve drawings so as to commence the work while the 3rd respondent uide letter dated lO.O7 .2C23 is reluctant to acknowledge tl.e factum of involving in executing &.ithout an approved drawing as it would be a reason lor not passing the bill both by technical and hnancial authoriries. petirioner applied for extension of time along with a requcst lor approval of drawings uide letter addressed to Lhe 3*r responclent on 2O.O7.2O23 marking a copy to the 2n(r rcspon.Ienr as rvell. However, Respondents 2 and 3 did not respond ancl furthcr rhev threatened to initiate action against them u.hich is unjust_

2. The 3d respondent Executive Enginecr hled counter stating that while signing the agreement, pcritioner did not raise 4 any matter about clrawings. Schedule A of the Agreement clearly specihed the description, quantities of work and MORTH (Ministry of Road Transport and Highways) specihcations for the work to be executed. However, the specifications to be followed for execution of work *"1s 41so communicated to petitioner by Ietter dated 24.12.2022 and the quantification of materials for any of the ,,t'ork to be executed can be obtained vide MORTH Standard data book and specifications provided in technical sanctioned estimate which is well-known by petitioner being a special class contractor and having vast experience in execution of similar type ol uorks. Dra\\'ing attention to Clauses 1'13 and 1'15, this respondent stzrtr:s that there will not be any pre-bid meeting for Lhc v:rlue ol- uorks below flve crores, however, tenderers can aclclress the attthorit,v of inviting tender for any queries but petirione r ttt vet- addre ssed any queries to the tender authoritv cluring ten<1et-ing process and they did not inspect the sitc beforc tt'nclering to assess the availability and quality of materi:r.l lor t:xccution of work. It is also stated that petitioner submirtcd threc dra"l'ings without submitting supporting data comph'ing ri'ith Schcdule A of the bilateral agreement signed tr1' I 5 him and simply compelling this office for unilateral approval of such drawings. As per the A.p.D.s.s.(Andhra pradesh Detailed Standard Specifications) and the standard prelirninary specifications P.s. 23 Data, materials and labour utilised in execution of work by the contractor sha.ll not be less than that given in the A.p.p.W.D. (Andhra pradesh public Works De partment) standard data for the relevant items, but petitioner submitted all drawings where the materials are meeting meagre than that specified in A.p.p.W.D. Standard data/MORTH standard data book. As per the MORTH standard dara boom minimum quantity of 42.gg kgs. of steel has to be used ror labrication of one running meter of mild steel railing, whereas pctitioner submitted three drawings of about 2O_25 kgs. of sreel per one running meter which is of utter standard and not qualifying to the MoRTH standards. Further, petitioner has to ubtarin principal approval of the 3.a responclent rn respect of loc:rtion of the work to be executed and related data arrivecl as per [he MORTH standard data book for quantification of materials for specific term, but petitioner did not submlr any .lara rclared to drawings for approval. r- 6 As per the agreement, there are nine numbers of items to be executed, but petitioner did not start any item and intentionally dragging the issue of drawings which were Submittedinincompleteshapewithoutsubmittingsupporting data complying with the necessary MORTH specifrcations and MORTH standard data book. It is stated that uide letter dated 22.O2.2023, though petitioner once again requested for approval of any of the drawings, none of them has supporting data meeting the standard specihcations and quantification of materials as per standard data book' The 3rd respondcnt reminds that time is an essence of contract and petitioner has to complete the work within by 03.05.2023, but thev have not commenced single item and simply drzrgging thc issue and submitted for extension of time by letter clarcd 20.07.2023 after reminding so many times lf petitioner ts gcttt-tirtt', thel u'ould have submitted the revised drawings as llcr the sl.rndards, however, each and every Ietter of petitioner n'as aclclrcsscd b1' rT'ay of replies dated 24 '12'2022 ' O5.O1.2023. 23.05.2023 :rncl 1O O7'2O23 hence, the contention that thcil s\rLrmissions \\'()re not considered is a blatant lie and false- 7

3. Heard Sri C.V.L.N. Murthy, learned counsel [or- petitioner as well as learned Govemment Pleader for Roads & Build ings.

4. Petitioner has been mainfaining all through that Agrecment very explicitly stated that drawings are 'NIL' under Schedule B o[ the contract document. Though respondents referred to specihcations, specilications and drawings arc complctelv diffcrent and drawings are essential for defining thc sizc, shape w,hich consequently impact the volume of materials that gocs into the fabricated rail guards. MORTH will not prescribc drawings, whereas specifications are related to thc propertics o[ the metal to be used such as density, granularity, etcctera and u.ith the same specifications, multiple kinds of drau ings :rncl variety of rail guards can be fabricated; IRC has given a tvpical rail guards that are installed on pavemcnts u'hcr<':rs rail guards under the contract are to be installed on mc-rrrlian oI the road, however, unless approved by t ht' dcpartment, drawings do not form part of the conrract. Pctitioncr points out that respondents for the f-rrst timc is talking about quantity of 42.88 kgs. of steel r.r,hich rras clanclt's t int:I1, s'ithheld in tender document; had the quantities (1 8 or drawings are given in the contract itself, no contractor would tender for this work. It is surprising to know that respondents are commenting that petitioner did not submit supporting data while saying that drawings are NIL in Schedule B The case of respondents, as put in the counter is otherwise' ln view o[ lhe rival contentions, it is expedient for 5. this Court to go through the relevant clauses of tender information. "

1.13 The te-trlerer shalL exr' Line cLoselA the A'P'SS tlE standard preliminary spectlTcQttotts contctined there in and also t?e M.O.S.T Specrficcttion before sltbntttt llg his L.S quotation tuhich shall be for finistted work iLsitu. Ile st'Lalt ttlso carefullg studg the drautngs and additional specifi.catiotLs attd ctll tlle do.-trnents, uhich Jonn Pan of fiE agreemerlt to be ettered uio bg 1lle .tccepte(7 tenderer'

1.15 Euery tenclerer ts e'q)ecte<7 before submitiing his LS Quotation to iispect tt,t. sitc of th.' pn4tosecl work. He should o'lso in'sPat th.e quatries oncl srrtsfu lu,trsctlf ttltottt ttLe quantitA qld auaitabilitg of m/lteials in sufficient qu(rltles (]s reqtlred for the uork and the' tead etc' the best class o/ ttt(tenol to be ttlttotrred frorru the quaries and other sources shall be used orl ll! rt'ork ht elery case, the mqterials must comptg with the releu(ntt st(utd(tr(l:;pe<\tcdtions qnd to standard laboratory tests. sa'r'ples ('l tnQtenQls as calLed' for in thr' standard specif.cation or in tlus te.rr.lL'r or os rttlurrerl by the Executiue Engineer in anA case, shal] bt sulrnittt<l lor the Exd:Ltttue Engineer approual before the SupplA to site of u'ork . 9

6. When the above-extracted clauses are very specihc that tenderer shall examine closely the APDSS and also MORTH specifications before submitting L.S. quotation and that tenderer should visit the site and assess the availabiliez and quantity of materials for execution of work, now petitioner cannot take a plea that specihcations and drawings are different and work should be commenced after approval of one of the drawings submitted by them. Further, though there would be no pre bid meeting for the value of works below hve crores, the tenderer can address the authority inviting tender for any queries, but never petiticner addressed any queries during the tendering process which shows acceptalce of all tender conditions during rts submission. Schedule A of the Agreement clearlv mentioned description, quantity of work and MORTH also providcd spccifications for the work to be executed. Respondents b\' letter dated 24.12.2022 alsb communicated to petitioncr spe('ilicatrons to be followed. Petitioner being a special class contractor is expected to know the MORTH standarrd data book to be followed. 7 . The ericvance of petitioners in this Writ Petition is that submissions made by them were not considered. Per t0 contra, the 3'a respondent in their counter detailed the cornmunication done with petitioner and enclosed the same with the counter. The latest communication being the one dated IO.O7 .2023 is extracted hereunder: o Government of Tclangana Roads & Buildlngs Dep:fiment NarioI-lal I{rgh!vaYs Fro6, To Executive Enginee{R&B), NH-Division, Ist floor, (R&B)comptex +,lesabta$k Hydelabad. M/s Supcr Hlrech EngLneers & Cont actor II No.{r 2 39. I st I'loor. AC (iuards, Lakdftapool, Ilvdcrabad Lr. No EE/NH/ I DB I HD / 2023 -24 77) Dated 1O.07.2023. Gentalman, Sub: Ituprovements of Road SaIeN b] provrdrng petleshan glr.xd rarlng and road s:alely measures ln km 510/0 to .;2lr'O ()n l\rne ll\'lcral'ad sc(oon of NH 65 ln the statjofTelangana under road saletl anntral plan 2021 23 Starl the work Regarding Reft l) MoRT&H, GOI Ref No RW,ilt\rt/NI{6- krtr ;lo 52+ ItS,iIIyd(lC No 2OaO67) Dated: 06 05 2022 l.lob No 65 i 2021 -22 2) SE'sL.SABNo.331202223.l)ated()l I I 2()ll 3) M/s.Super Hi Tech Engrnecrs & Contrixl('rs t.r No !'rl I)aredO/ l2 2022' ()Ol 4) T.O r-r.No.EElNH/ Hyd/DB /HD /2O)) ):\')n.t 5) T.O Lr. No.EE/NH lHvd/DB/HD/2o)) ).] t();s 6) T-O Lr. No.EE/NH/Hyd/ DB/ HD / 20 2 2 2-], li!(rlJ 7)T.O l,r.No.EElNH/ Hy|/DB/HD l2oD 2.\ vs 8f T.O Li.No.EE/NH/Hyd1DB/HD l2o):t )1.'1,2.''. 9) M/s.Super Hi-Tech Engincers & Contractols Lr No \rl. IO) T O Lr No.EEINH l:HydlDB/HD /2023 )+,t'71' 1l) SEsLrNo.844/RSI/T1IDSE/SENI{/ll\.1 20ll l:l'llt, 12)M/s.super Hi rech Ens,nccrs & conrr:L_l_::_:: ., ttltt"d 24 12 2022' l)arcd 05:01 2023' l)ared 27:01 2023. Dared 2s os 2023 I)atcd 16'06 2023 t)arcil ?3()62023 I)are'l 26'06 2023' I)^tad 26 06 2023 l'tte't 0607 2(123 u With reference to your letter reference I tth cited' and wh e acldrowledting tie eartier f"tte..'ia"."i.."n." Sth ci6d, where rn you put ton ard your itlegitiErate deoand for according uppiorJ oi ao*i"g". The foot note of Schedule A o[ the Agreement concluded vide page 32' clause 5 clearly states Atl the ltems of work wilt have to be executed as per the standatd i1"J down in MoRT&H and IRC speclrlcations and the special specifications .'"a.="a *itf, the tenders Being yoursell special class cootr:actm you ought to have lsro\rrl "#ri.".."" specrhcations'of MoRT&H and IRC so as make use of these specifrcation G. and vou have pledged to have gone through all the st'ndard "^U."i il;;;.-;-k/.."itruction speciflations before signing the contractors hcensc "i""a*a Besides, lor your convemence !t was clearly stated throrrgh this- oEce letter 4 cited mentioning tfre MoRTii,H spccifications 2703 2 & 1900 {5t1t revision) and IRC 1o3 2012 for fi. t}r. *o.k ro be ca-rned out accordngly Further, throuBh protracted references, you _,i-. i.f.i"".. ."a ,g"t" remrnded for tatong trp rhe *r-'rt as the str-etch of the road passes through *. hF,w traffic zone and .oveted unait ,""a salclt work Further' reGinders Aom police .o,''pi."o" n'rninded to vou ror the earlv compl€tlon of the work ;;;id;'.';;;; went fuble with You- ilf .Jt The earlier letler you have requFst"l a \!'ck tlme in off€rint your explanatron not taking up the work arld rt was construed lhat lotL havc inlention of atranging men machinery 'or f"r;id"; the work w,rh no progrcss and unnecessary correspondence- "p The work should have been t€'mrnated as se"cral reminders went futile but however vou are cornmrtted to take up rhc \tol k as vou have rerterated in youf lettels, you are requifed to v",.,, ,".""^1. or exft:rnat'on durv comptvins tlre norms & in prcscrib€d l;;,;il;;;;; proforma for taking uP the work Failing whlch the actron !!111 bc ulruated as Pcr terms ard conditions of agreement' Yours faithJully, iffil*::#ffi::Jfff) From the abovc, it is discernible that respondents

8. have reminded petitioncr to [ake up the work as the stretch of road passes through [.tc:l'u,r' traffic zone covered under road safety work as police authoritres also requested to complete the work as early as possiblc. Hor'r'ever, petitioner has been dragging the matter on the grouncl ol seeking approval of one of the drawings submitted bv them According to respondents' they are ready to approvc thc (lra$'ings which are meeting the standard specifications' IRC codes and MORTH standard data t2 book for the interest of work and safety of pedestrians, however, none of the drawings submitted by petitioner has supporting data meeting the standard specifications and quantification of materia-ls as per standard data book, so as to enable the 3rd respondent to accord approval. Further, it is to be seen that petitioner has to complete the work within the sr:heduled period of six months, but however, they have not commenced single item out of nine which depicts that petitioner is not intcrested in executing the contract. In the light o[ the same , thrs Court is of the opinion that Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismisscd. No

9. costs. 1O. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applicarions, il any shall stand closed. ,/TTRUE COPYII To, 1 2 3 TJ GJP **d*Uitt*'**'*:L??::L ,ih+.38$t?t"^H / SDI. S S SECTTON OFFI CER {or the state of Telangana' HIGH COURT DATED:2510212025 ORDER WP.No.22246 of 2023 ) J t) t 1r}E srA ,c Rc 20JUt'l ilffi * o€ .So415t tr $ $( DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS Y+ )A >f 6